Judgment No. 4486

• Organization: European Patent Organisation (EPO)
• Date: 27.01.2022
• Original: Anglais
• Judges: Moore, Frydman, Shen
• Full judgment text (anglais) - Texte intégral du jugement

Decision

The complaint is dismissed.

Summary

The complainant challenges the composition of the Munich Staff Committee and of the Central Staff Committee.

Judgment keywords

Keywords

staff representative; complaint dismissed

Consideration 4

Extract:

With regard to his standing as an alleged member of the MSC [Munich Staff Committee] and the CSC [Central Staff Committee], as rightly pointed out by the IAC and endorsed by the President, at the time of the appeal, the complainant was not a member of the MSC because he had resigned from it, regardless of the purpose underlying his resignation. He was not a member of the CSC either. Pursuant to Article 2 of the then Election Regulations, “[t]he local section [that is to say the MSC] shall appoint the Munich members of the [CSC]”. Therefore, his election to the MSC did not automatically mean that he was also elected to the CSC. On the contrary, a separate appointment is a prerequisite according to the above provision. The complainant did not produce any evidence that the MSC appointed him as a member of the CSC. Thus, his claims as a staff representative of either the MSC or the CSC, including claims for declaring the composition of the MSC and the CSC void, for recognising his mandate to represent in the CSC the category C employees and for accessing the tools of communication for Staff Committee’s members, are irreceivable ratione personae. Accordingly, his allegation that the denial of his participation in the CSC activities constitutes a violation of the prohibition of non-discrimination and of equal treatment is not receivable either.

Keywords

receivability of the complaint; internal appeals body; competence; staff representative; ratione personae; member of an internal body

Consideration 5

Extract:

It is to be recalled that there is established jurisprudence of the Tribunal that generally the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate on electoral processes relating to staff associations (see, for example, Judgments 78 and 2636).

Reference(s)

Jugement(s) TAOIT: 78, 2636

Keywords

competence of tribunal; request to deal with issues internal to staff association